Skip to content

What is your Role | A Response to “The Winter Women”

I hardly ever take time out of my day to write responses to articles that I stumble across on the internet, and being the way I am I find some very controversial things especially when I am bored in class and just looking stuff up on the internet.

With that being said sometimes I do take some time to write based off of something I find on the internet and this is one of those times. (I have written previously on Gods Not Dead) and this is my response to an article that I found on thiswinterwomen.com entitled:

Freedom in Christ / Submission in Marriage: Why I don’t submit to my husband , Part I”

Read the entire article here

Naturally this peaked my interest because as many of you know I am as far from egalitarian as it gets. I think it is one of the most un-biblical accepted doctrines that has plagued the church for centuries. I want to make clear that this is not a post debating egalitarian vs complementarian, this article is a direct response to this article that I will link below.

Let’s Begin.

She begins her article with this line, “I find the theology of submission in a religion that promises freedom in Christ absolutely maddening.” Bold included in her article, I could spend the entirety of my time dealing with this un-biblical statement.

  1. Theology of submission is completely biblical.
    1. James 4:7 – Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you
    2. Hebrews 13:7 – Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
    3. Luke 22:42 – Saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”
    4. Ephesians 5:24 – Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
    5. Titus 3:1 – Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
    6. 1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

I could go on and on with verses, but the verse I want to pause and take a closer look at is Luke 22:42. If you are unfamiliar with this passage this is an instance where we see Jesus (The Son) SUBMITTING to the WILL of God (specifically the Father). What does this mean? Well it means that a Theology/Doctrine of submission exists and is practiced within the Trinity.

Now what most people will take this as is The Son is not as much God than the father then if he submits to The Father, this is flawed hermeneutic, just as the submission of the Son to the Father does not make the Son any less God, so the same applies to wives submitting to their husband, it does not make the wife any less of a person, it is simply an act of obedience. The fact that she finds part of the essence of the Trinity maddening is heartbreaking and proof of the fact that our culture has infiltrated our hermeneutic. It’s sad that the word submission has such a negative connotation on it, that is the production of our individualistic culture curated in America.  Like I said I could spend forever speaking on this single line in her article, but I have much more to cover.

The author then begins her article, with this quote.

“Paul. Was. Not. Jesus.  

(Paul never even met Jesus in the flesh.)

 

Was Paul a great guy? Sure, maybe. Did he help spread the gospel? Absolutely. But was he God in person? Nope. So when I read something that Paul wrote and it seems to contradict the way Jesus treated people- you bet your boots I’m going with the J-man.”

Seriously, this breaks my heart that this is a popular belief within the CHURCH!

  1. You are completely correct Paul was not Jesus
  2. Paul would probably disagree, with saying he was a good guy, because he understood the depth of his sin, and his complete dependence on the saving grace of Jesus… But I agree he sure did a ton to spread the gospel, I mean the man wrote half the New Testament.
  3. This is the rough part… and I am not too sure where to go with this she is saying 1 of 2 things and I will cover both of them below.
    1. One, she is claiming that Scripture contradicts itself, saying that only the parts where Jesus spoke are truly inspired vs the rest of the Bible
      1. This is simple, if she is saying this, then she does not believe in the inherency of Scripture, that it all was breathed out by God, even the parts wrote by “Man” which FYI, was all of it.
    2. Two, she is claiming that it looks like they contradict, and upon further cultural study she decided to “align” with Jesus.
      1. She looked at the instances where Paul spoke on submission and came to the conclusion that it was a cultural statement and does not have the same application today. This is not the point of this article but I feel the need to touch on this slightly.
      2. Paul NEVER, and I mean NEVER, speaks from a cultural lens when giving doctrine, he may be addressing cultural issues present in a specific culture, but it’s not because that problem is specific to an individual culture, rather the problem is found rooted in the sin we all inherited from Adam… (Thanks Adam)
      3. Paul speaks this doctrine of submission into various cultures, which shows this doesn’t apply to a specific people group, but it applies directly to all of us through the structure in which God created the institution of marriage.

 

  1. “you bet your boots I’m going with the J-man.”
    1. Lastly, who gives her the power to bet my boots… I mean I like my boots, and with her argument I’m going to lose them…

“We only have four books in the entire Bible that give us an account of Jesus’ life. In these Gospels, there is ample evidence of Jesus uplifting women. But perhaps more importantly, nowhere in scripture does the Son of God treat women as inferior beings

It seems as though here in this statement, she only ascribes to the gospels as being the inspired word of God, I’m not going to make that claim though as I don’t personally know where she stands.

  1. There is a ton of evidence of Jesus uplifting women…. and your right Jesus does not treat ANY ONE as inferior beings, even though we all are, men and women alike, that’s kinda why we need grace.
    1. This statement infuriates me because she is making SO many presuppositions and is refusing to talk about them.
      1. This means that Paul, Peter, and John, did look at other people as inferior beings… which we know just by reading is incorrect.
      2. The other MAJOR presupposition she is making, is that submission equates with inferiority, which again is HERETICAL… and yes I said it heretical, why? Because that is saying that Jesus is then inferior to the Father, which is the denial of Jesus’ deity, which is yes… heretical, even if it is unintentional, it is heresy.

She says this, Here is a short list of other New Testament commands that culture seems to have moved past, and then proceeds to list scriptures that she claims are no longer in play, or no longer useful, I’m not too sure what she does with these, but the way she words it makes it seem like we can just toss the numerous passages that speak on submission into the trash can.

The next section’s focus is primarily the cultural context in which the epistles where written, and why they only apply to a culture and not to the overall population, I addressed this earlier and due to the length that this article is already I am hesitant to get into a ton of depth, just because that could be a topic in itself. However, here is my BRIEF defense of complimentary theology, derived completely from the Old Testament. She never references the OT.

I will mention though on a quick note the order of creation and the significance that is shown in the creation account.

“The creation order indicates that all of the creation is determined by and subject to the sovereign will of God. The creation account of Genesis 1 and 2 proceeds according to God’s plan, and nothing in it is arbitrary; all is indicative of God’s purpose. The account of the creation of mankind in Genesis 2 further reveals God’s plan for the man and the woman. The manner and sequence of their creation is expressive of the divinely ordained distinction between them and the relationship that they are to sustain to one another. The order of creation — the man was created first — is expressive of the creation order…

This is a very important revelation concerning the creation order. The text explicitly states that God made the woman to serve as a helper to man. There is no need for speculation; the text is clear; the woman is made for the man. In anticipation of the woman’s creation, God declares that it is not good for man to be alone. Man needs a companion, someone who will complement him and assist him in fulfilling the dominion mandate.”

The Hebrew word for “help” means one who aids, supports, or assists another; or an assistant. The word itself does not necessarily imply subordination; context must determine the relationship between the helper and the one being assisted. In the context of Genesis 1 and 2, it does imply subordination, i.e., a helper, an assistant. Man has been created first, given the charge to keep the Garden, given instruction on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and has exercised authority in the naming of the animals. The woman comes into a situation where the man already has been made head over the Garden and given responsibility to keep it, has been given vital, life-and-death instructions concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and has exercised his authority over the animals.”

This is a very important revelation concerning the creation order. The text explicitly states that God made the woman to serve as a helper to man. There is no need for speculation; the text is clear; the woman is made for the man. In anticipation of the woman’s creation, God declares that it is not good for man to be alone. Man needs a companion, someone who will complement him and assist him in fulfilling the dominion mandate.

Feeling lonely? Get some emails…




The Hebrew word for “help” means one who aids, supports, or assists another; or an assistant. The word itself does not necessarily imply subordination; context must determine the relationship between the helper and the one being assisted. In the context of Genesis 1 and 2, it does imply subordination, i.e., a helper, an assistant. Man has been created first, given the charge to keep the Garden, given instruction on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and has exercised authority in the naming of the animals. The woman comes into a situation where the man already has been made head over the Garden and given responsibility to keep it, has been given vital, life-and-death instructions concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and has exercised his authority over the animals

I think I have sufficiently handled that topic I will link more information on this at the bottom of the article, in short, the culturally subject argument falls to ash when examined biblically. Lets move on…

Her third section is titled “Jesus was revolutionary in his relationships with women.” before I even comment on what she wrote, let’s make it clear Jesus was revolutionary with every type of relationship, with gentiles, with women, with Pharisees, and with men.

 

  1. He set time apart to teach women.
    1. This is correct he sure did, this was revolutionary, but he also took time to teach gentiles, tax collectors, and his own disciples (none of which were women)
    2. I don’t see how this disqualifies the doctrine of submission though, I am not saying women were treated correctly in that society, in fact many were abused and mistreated, which is why Jesus teaching women was so revolutionary, not because he was overriding himself in his own law.
  2. And to Heal them
    1. He sure did just like he healed everyone, this again fails to disqualify a doctrine that is so clearly explained in scripture.
  3. He even likened himself to women
    1. She uses this as a justification, “…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”Luke 13:34
      1. This literally has nothing to do with women hood, like at all, in fact she doesn’t even quote the beginning of the verse, because it wouldn’t fit her “topical” interpretation.
      2. Jesus is clearly making a comparison between how a hen gathers her children, to how Jesus calls his children.
    2. And it is women who ultimately share the good news that he is risen.
      1. Again, the women were performing there ritualistic routine (Within their role might I add) and so they were already at the tomb.
      2. Again I am not saying women must never speak of religion, and just sit there… Obviously they would go share the good news of the risen Savior…

 

Her four points do prove that Jesus was revolutionary in His relationships with women, just as He was revolutionary in all of his relationships, male and female, Jew and gentile

Her last and final section of the article is titled, “Why submit yourself to anyone who isn’t God?” and for writing purposes I am just going to post the entire section here:

 

“Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Exodus 20:3 

If your own religion considers humanity totally depraved, originally sinful, and in need of saving from the pits of fiery hell, why are we okay with married women being submissive to these creatures? According to this theology, we are flesh bags filled to the brim with sinful desires tamed only by constant repentance, adequate “quiet time” and just enough Hillsong music (I’d love to argue this here but there isn’t time and blog posts are only supposed to be like 800 words.)

And yet…

In my experience, a core component of our religion teaches that it is a women’s role to submit to her sinful, totally depraved husband.

What could possibly go wrong

I’ll just let the horror that is the conclusion of her article sink in… Ok, now that we are done cringing, lets deconstruct it. (This is my least favorite part of her argument)

 

  1. why are we okay with married women being submissive to these creatures?”
    1. So like? Men are creatures now? And women aren’t? Total depravity has absolutely nothing to do with this argument, like nothing, yes both men and women are totally depraved, 100%. However, when we are born again, we receive the spirit, and we are justified by Jesus who sits at the right hand of the father interceding for us constantly.
    2. We cannot use our total depravity as a justification to throw out clear biblical principles and doctrine. Like read Romans 6. Its like she is using sin as the excuse to disobey God, it is circular reasoning and poor philosophical interpretation. In fact it’s the teaching that Paul warns Timothy about in his letters to the young pastor in Ephesus.
  2. She makes it sound like men are the only “gender” who are totally depraved, or the only “gender” who was affected by the fall, and she fails to realize that women was the “gender” responsible for the fall in the first place, and since Man is the head, he received responsibility for Eve’s sin.

 

In Conclusion, this isn’t even me disagree with egalitarian interpretation, this is me simply pointing out the obvious flaws in interpretation that are present in this article.

 

What the heck was the point of that?

 

  1. The purpose of GNM is to inform and equip followers of Christ to do every good work, and to be faithful ministers of the gospel, and proper interpreters of scripture. I write this to show:
    1. That there is a lot of this kind of thinking in the church, and unfortunately people just blindly accept the stuff they read online (The irony here is funny)
  2. I also want to show the importance of proper hermeneutic, (interpretation) so that we can be faithful bearers of the good news. We are called to dive into scripture and study it! We have to be diligent, and if we are not we end with articles like the one I am replying to above.

 

Lastly… If you disagree, or have questions, email me, or get in touch with me I would love to explain in more depth how I came to my conclusions I did, I wanted to stay under 3000 words.

 

 

Reference my podcast on the topic: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bringing-grace-to-the-nations/id1278078443?mt=2

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to our AWESOME Newsletter!
in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list and get a free copy of our new BOOK! You will also get exclusive offers, and exclusive podcast episodes!